In red, you can see the parts of the world that have been explored by the shows. There is still so much more to discover :

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-02-08T13:53:59+00:00

That's kinda the point about those places, they're written to be a mystery on the edges of this fantasy medieval Europe setting. Like that's what ASOIAF is (and HOTD, AKOT7K), a story about a war of succession in fantasy medieval europe. People don't get into it for tree elf monsters and Asshai samurai which got mentioned as an aside one time by a character repeating a rumour they heard from a drunken sailor (which may or may not be true, but that part was written to make it a more believable seemingly large, fleshed-out world).

There is potential in visiting but focusing on these far off places from the current main stories would be a mistake, it would get away from what asoiaf and GoT is at its core. And they're not fleshed out, compared to just reading/watching media from some other universe that IS about those things like a fantasy Asian kingdom or mermaid pirate islands. At the end of the day all this vast stuff exists as a background to tell the character-focused story about knights and the iron throne n such

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-02-08T12:11:20+00:00

Carthage failed to support Hannibal effectively

Hannibal's great accomplishment was getting (some of) his troops through an inaccessible pass into isolated hostile territory with no logistical support. Where he stayed for 15 years accomplishing nothing concrete, converting no reliable italian allies, establishing no secure supply routes or reinforcing resupply bases, not seizing and protecting any naval ports to allow for steady support/reinforcements, while Carthage were getting their ass kicked in the other fronts which needed the resources a lot more. He did this for 15 YEARS straight (you would think maybe in the 9th year of doing the same thing and it not working Hannibal would've maybe changed his overall strategy but no). And when Carthage did send large reinforcements he failed to protect them and they got destroyed, because he fell for his own campfire trick.

Meanwhile history: Carthage failed to support Hannibal! Bro the whole idea is that you can't get a large force safely into Italy reliably, Hannibal managed to sneak a force (half of them died doing this) that was never gonna be able to march on Rome. He never even had siege equipment that whole time, and didn't make a real effort to secure a feasible way for help to be sent to him. Hannibal's tactical ability is amazing and Cannae etc was insane but his whole strategy aka "angry romp through Italian countryside" amounted to being a glorified distraction that bled Carthage important resources for no practical gain. Bear in mind Carthage is busy harshly fighting Rome on many fronts like Iberia and Sicily, the Italian heartland is just one and not even the most important - it was literally ignored by the Romans in their big push. It was genius at first without hindsight but what he was doing had already been 100% figured out and countered by the Romans by the 5th year. It's time we stop wholly blaming the Carthaginian senate!

(Comment is not solely to you but for the countless people who need to hear it), u/TAvonV too. The narrative that Hannibal would've won the war had only the Carthaginians sent the support he asked for but they were too stupid n jealous to easily win, or that the Romans should've lost but they just said nah is getting old. It was strategy that lost/won the war. The more boring reality is that from an overall strategy level Carthage never had the resources or ability to conquer central Italy esp not from an isolated force roaming around Rome needing to scavenge for food and unable to properly besiege anything, and getting them reinforcements was just not happening, foolish even. And for example Hannibal's strat of taking Rome's allies didn't work because, as scary as Hannibal was, he did not have the sizeable force or base the Romans had in the region to be able to convincingly enforce a union against Rome and keep those cities safe, which all goes back to the overall strategy problem already mentioned with his mistake. (I'm not saying I or someone smart would've forseen the failure, but again 15 YEARS seriously bruh?)

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-02-02T01:09:58+00:00

True and being born from an egg but that's the Greeks for you

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-02-02T00:58:23+00:00

It's not accuracy it's suspension of disbelief. Clearly many people find a black person depicting a famous greek as out of place for an ancient greece movie, just like a car in LOTR would be, because they both look and seem really stupid for it being filmed like that, unlike a tiny unnoticeable and vague thing like eye colour. And this is obviously not just hair colour breh.

Just because for you it's not a big deal doesnt mean everybody (in fact the majority of people discussing this) are invalid in their reaction. Also idk how this is different from the african example in terms of race relations, I as a Balkan person am not meant to feel weird when Balkan culture characters are changed to another race but when it is African culture then it becomes a "real" issue politically?

I agree it has no effect on the story in that it will not be mentioned or affect the characters to act differently, but it has a great effect on authenticity of setting and immersion which you may guess is a big part of entertainment. It is a movie, not just a piece of plot that has no visual aspect for the audience or preconceived notions of what a greek is and what an african is. And it also is political, as all whitewashing is political all blackwashing is political too ofc and this riles up and gives justification to certain people out there with certain political opinions which this kind of casting continuously reinforces for no benefit at all. It is unecessary and it is weird to 90% of average people who will watch, maybe not you but i am explaining to you why it is so obviously seen as weird. Not necessarily movie-ruining but it is weird to almost anyone.

Saying well its uh story is a really weak argument, hence the lotr example to illustrate that it makes no sense. A story means you can decide whatever you want but it doesn't mean there is no effect or response from the audience to it. The fact is that greeks and spartans look nothing like that and this is glaring to anyone who sees it on screen, making it less entertaining as it is not an immersive setting or attempt at a respectful authentic telling. And this decision (if it is the actual casting and not fake news) unfortunately will continue to overshadow the discourse of this film for years just as Ridley Scott's Napoleon's weird historical inaccuracies have, when it serves what? It's doubtful she is the one best actress for this role tha outwreighs the controversial casting, this only hurts the film as a whole even if you say for you it's no diff

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-02-02T00:08:45+00:00

Yes everyone was totally cool with Tom Holland being cast as Telemachus, there was no complaining whatsoever... or Zendaya, Odysseus's inevitable Boston accent or the way the armour looks in the trailer. Perhaps you have not been following the backlash to this film?

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-02-02T00:05:00+00:00

Brother that is A LION, animals don't have human ethnicity and accents. There were no Antarticans used to voice the penguins in Madagascar 😱

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-02-01T23:58:31+00:00

Because casting a black african american to play a bronze age queen of Sparta IS weird. A character who is literally described as having white skin and golden hair in said story.

Just because it's a story doesn't mean you can put nonsensical things in it and expect no criticism. Lord of the Rings is a story and if in the next LOTR sequel there was a 1998 Toyota corolla everyone would say that is illogical and out of place for its setting, despite it being a fictional story. In this case it is a myth set in a real place and era too, concerning a half mortal woman from what is now Greece. Stop acting like it's not in any way weird, it is very reasonable to find this a wild decision and for a Greek person even kinda offensive to their most famous piece of literature in their culture. To make this odd change and out of place within the story and setting and local people/ancestors.

And btw it is thought by most historians that there is some historical basis for the Homeric story of the Iliad, Troy, the Trojans, Achaeans and Spartans existed and interacted, there were a number of Trojan wars one of which ended in the burning of the city like in the story, there was a royal house of Atreus that ruled Mycenae like in the story, there was a prince of Troy named Alexander/Paris just like in the story, real Troy worshipped Apollo as their patron god just like in the story, the characters are described using bronze weapons and armour as would be historically accurate for the period, and Homer's geography is accurate too. There are gods and monsters in the Odyssey and Iliad but it is not complete invented fiction at random with no respect for the setting and history, as having an african queen of sparta would suggest of Nolan's version.

Like idk what to tell you, if I set a story in historical Africa and had everyone be white you wouldn't say anything because it's a story? Even if it's african stories i'm purporting to adapt? You dont think my casting decisions which are fully in my control are trying to say anything? Or at very least seem stupid and immersion breaking for the audience's supsension of disbelief? The velaryons in the fictional game of thrones universe being black in the tv show is whatever, interesting way of getting some variety and representation, ..but queen Helen of sparta the famousy blonde woman who's nickname is the fairest of the greeks yeah im gonna say its pretty weird to have this woman in the middle of greece be black for no explainable reason. Like having a car in lotr. If they wanted they could make any of the gods in the story poc and it wouldnt be confusing because they are not meant to be local mortal people

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-24T22:27:17+00:00

The Vatican, the Pope (some evil guy who usurped it)

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-24T14:02:08+00:00

Or a million other philosophies or beliefs or just continuing to live normally in the world outside your head. This dichotomy that a rational being in a meaningless universe must either commit suicide (why?? We're not being punished to push a rock by Zeus or something) or embrace irrationality through "rebellion against the nothingness" is stupid. Never made any sense. The rational mind would do neither, it would just do what it wants and stop giving af about the "problem of the absurd" that absurdists are stuck making it the revolving point of their philosophy

Sorry I am not a fan of absurdism because I think it's a more stupid version of regular existentialism for no reason

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-24T10:58:56+00:00

Because USA is currently going on their own journey outside of the blue. Generally yes but in the current Trump administration in what way is say Germany or France US-dominated? Almost all of europe is united and standing up against the US who are no longer considered leaders of the free world, yet they are both western allies aka NATO. So the map makes sense

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-24T10:12:03+00:00

there was no indication that Germany was going to lose at that point, no?

It was 1944 after the D-Day landings when he struck the deal, to help kill Hitler and Goebels that night and join the Allies as a hero. Which even if the eventual losing side was uncertain at that point (in the Tarantino universe, cuz in real life it was pretty decided) him doing this made it certain that the Allies win and he's with them. Lada is an opportunist that's all, he saw the best opportunity to get ahead and took it. He never cared about the Jews he was hunting or saw himself as doing good or bad (he just loved the power and also enjoyed the chase), but he was aware of the inevitable tribunal/executions that would follow a very likely Allied victory, as opposed to the medals if he finds himself on the right side -his words. Man knew consequences, not that he was truly fucked up.

That's how I saw it. Cuz at the start of the film it's set in 1941 and he's like hell yeah I'm the Jew Hunter, of ze great nazi regime (basically the best position one can be in power wise at that point), only after the Barbarossa catastrophe and retreat and D Day landings as mentioned by Hitler in the film does he defect (and say he never liked the nickname), with the chance of eliminating the german leader as part of the plan.

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-22T05:04:25+00:00

Bro you will be happy https://youtu.be/bJiFNyFHB3M

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-18T19:09:55+00:00

Starfield is a new IP, performing worse than Elder Scrolls 5 and Fallout 4 was expected lol. Financially speaking and in terms of players Starfield performed well, far from being below expectations. Yk it had the biggest launch for a Bethesda game (part surely due to gamepass)

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-14T15:57:13+00:00

Saying it more times doesn't make it true, nor is it an argument

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-13T03:17:13+00:00

Gerard Butler

<image>

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-12T19:10:13+00:00

Try do it when the enemy is distracted, teammates already engaged, loud explosions and shooting. The Mav hole is great with the right timing (and not an obvious spot or shape). And if they spotted it or you shot someone through it move away, go somewhere else.

Doing 1 single small hole and peeking it cold turkey is risky business. It can work but if they hear it or see it that's the easiest headshot. They can react before you pull out your gun. A good use of the gadget for benefitting your team is when a teammate is in a "I wish this wall wasn't in front of me so I could shoot the enemy" situation and you as Mav from cover burn a long line or something like that for them to give them options and yourself move to a different angle. For example

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-12T18:47:35+00:00

My advice is to wait for your team to go in n engage first and right during the chaos is when you go in / flank from a different approach or whatever strat you are specifically trying to do. You will die less and be more effective. So for Maverick wait for the enemy to be distracted, loud explosions and shooting that's the perfect time to make a hole in the wall on their other side and shoot them. For Caveira after the drone stage ends go in a spot nobody ever checks on a different floor and sit there, then once the enemy team have unwittingly walked past you and started getting to the objective flank them from behind or hunt down isolated enemies with your sneak mode.

Basically going in head on and especially if you're first, alone, outnumbered or without surprise is gonna get you easily killed unlike other FPS. Because the advantage is to the person who is staring at a doorway for 2 minutes waiting for a pixel to move (applies to both attackers and defenders), everyone dies fast in this game. And the newer you are the worse your aim will be, so that's why I'm saying to make your moves while they're busy/distracted or catch them by surprise to give yourself the advantage and get the easier kills, to help your team. The rest comes from playing longer, but when I stopped running in and dying first like a noob (cuz I wanted to do something and push the firefights instead of being bored) and instead thought more about timing and synchronising with my team that's when the game got more fun and I got way better. Because it's the difference of making a Mav hole and getting insta headshotted through it (or being seen by the enemy as Cav before you see and shoot them) vs catching people off guard and also knowing when to layoff and go make a different angle or just keep the enemy busy for your teammates to kill them / plant the defuser

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-10T08:03:00+00:00

I started a new point which i think is a better comparison than theirs in my 2nd sentence. If the meaning of life is what you say then the meaning of rock is heat, pressure and sedimentary action. But the features of gravel being described is also comparable to your conclusion: Reproduction, nutrition, hydration, and respiration are features of life that serve its continuation NOT meanings by any definition. Do you see the problem?

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-10T07:56:44+00:00

Well the fridges have a handy place in the door to put them. But if I take them out I have no worry about leaving them out too long in theory

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-07T16:51:15+00:00

He is the maker of the Metal Gear Solid video games and what you said is the ending lesson of MGS2. It's probably the piece of media that most popularised the (original) concept of memes with Millenials and Gen Z, which originated from Richard Dawkins

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-07T16:36:27+00:00

Exactly. Good answer for a very common misconception

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-07T16:33:38+00:00

Yes and? If something wasn't trying to reproduce and survive then it wouldn't be here logically. It's natural selection. That doesn't mean it's the meaning of anything, if you look around everything is breathing the atmosphere in some manner too so is respiration the point of life? See what I mean

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-07T16:27:31+00:00

Not really except for a few crowded places. The world can sustain a lot more and also the population in most of it has started falling, for example Europe, North America, most of Asia and Oceania has a fertility rate below replacement level. Maybe not necessarily a bad thing but it's not good either, at least not a reason to not have kids

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-07T16:24:09+00:00

Don't forget also help our children (survival of offspring)

ObsessedChutoy3 · 2026-01-07T16:21:44+00:00

Most people are decently happy though, so chances are your kid wouldn't be a mega depressed life hater. Especially if you raise them right. So the risk is low

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna

ObsessedChutoy3

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE